Federal climate change legislation considered the main vehicle for global warming action would create major changes in the power industry, according to an analysis by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released March 14. The bill, S 2191, would result in the shutdown of traditional coal power plants by 2040. “The electricity sector provides the greatest source of emissions reductions, largely through an expansion of nuclear power and deployment of carbon capture and storage,” said EPA principal deputy assistant administrator Robert Meyers. Carbon capture and storage technology, involves collecting carbon dioxide created when coal is burned and then injecting it into porous underground geological formations to keep it from entering the atmosphere. While the technology has been used in limited demonstration projects, it is not yet considered commercially viable. EPA said the bill could bring a 150 percent increase in the use of nuclear power by 2050, as well as boost reliance on renewable energy. Fossil fuel use would peak in 2010. Traditional coal plants would be replaced by clean coal plants with carbon capture and storage technology beginning in 2025, as well as by natural gas-fired generating plants. EPA projected that under the measure electricity prices would be 44 percent higher in 2030 and 26 percent higher in 2050 than they would be in the absence of federal climate change legislation. The federal agency further projected that S 2191 would shave gross domestic product growth--expected to amount to 97 percent by 2030 and 215 percent by 2050 under business as usual--by between 0.9 percent and 3.8 percent in 2030 and between 2.1 percent and 3.3 percent in 2050. The West would experience smaller economic impacts than most other regions of the nation. CO2 credit prices likely would range between $61 and $83 a ton in 2030 and between $159 and $220 a ton in 2050, according to the analysis. The bill’s sponsors and opponents interpreted the numbers to bolster their positions. “EPA’s detailed analysis indicates that the U.S. can curb global warming without sacrificing economic prosperity,” said Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT), a cosponsor of the legislation. “If Democrats have their way, Americans will pay significantly more at the pump, in their homes, and in many cases, with their jobs” countered Senator James Inhofe (R-OK). “No matter how anyone attempts to spin the economic impacts, this bill is wrong for America.” In light of its cost, Inhofe said the bill is headed for “a cameo appearance” on the Senate floor “before being tabled,” in reference to a filibuster threat. EPA estimated the measure would cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent in 2030 and by 56 percent by 2050. The analysis said very little of the reductions would come from the transportation sector due to the relatively low price expected for emissions credits. S 2191 would cap emissions on fossil fuel producers and coal power plants, as well as companies that manufacture or distribute chemicals classified as greenhouse gases, such as sulfur hexafluoride, perfluorocarbons, and hydrofluorocarbons. The cap would decline each year for those companies. Those that stay under the emissions limits would be able to sell their excess emissions rights to companies that emit more than their limit. The bill also would allow limited use of offsets to satisfy emissions limits, earned for instance, by paying to reduce greenhouse gases from facilities not subject to emissions limits or to plant trees that take carbon dioxide out of the air.
